Subscribe to my Feed
« What’s the next President’s position on abortion? | Home | USA Today Explains Why Wall Street CEOs Haven’t Apologized »
What ethical obligations do journalists have?
By Lauren | October 20, 2008
Last week, I wrote a post critiquing coverage of the Presidential campaign, arguing that the news media have focused too much on entertaining trivia and too little on the candidates’ positions. Chris commented in response that the press would probably argue that “they are providing what the viewers want.” His comment, and observations from Chris and Andrew that they’ve been able to avoid most of the hoopla by consuming news from more substantive sources, inspired me to look into what ethical standards, if any, journalists are required to meet.
I was delighted to discover that the Society of Professional Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists both have codes of ethics for journalists to follow. To summarize, these codes appropriately require journalists to be truthful and independent, to be responsible in obtaining information and documents, and to refrain from plagiarism. Good stuff, no doubt.
Not surprisingly, neither code says much about journalists’ content – a profession that thrives on freedom of expression isn’t likely to restrict significantly what its members say. Interestingly, though, the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code does call upon journalists to “show good taste” and “avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.” One could argue endlessly about what that means, but apparently the Society thinks it’s not ethical for reporters just to dish up steaming platters of whatever tasteless gunk their audience craves. Good for the Society … but do journalists agree?
Many people don’t have the time or know-how to research complex issues, so they look to the news media to summarize, educate, and explain. In this age of media bombardment, there’s more “news” coverage out there than the average person could possibly digest. There’s also plenty of light entertainment available, and it’s a mistake to mix the two. It would be more responsible – and ethical – for the news media to tell the public what we genuinely need to know, not just what it might be fun to hear.
Topics: Business Ethics, Social Ethics, business communications, ethics |
October 20th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Great follow up! Your last paragraph makes a tremendous point.
October 21st, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Thanks, Chris! My concern is that, by focusing on trivia rather than the things that really matter, the news media disserve the public in two ways. First, they fail to provide the information voters really need to make a thoughtful decision. Second, they encourage voters to select the candidates for all the wrong reasons.
Lauren
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 am
You are absolutely correct in your response to Chris’s point, Lauren.
I have considerable disdain for a great deal of media coverage about the speeches delivered by your current president. Often, the make a great deal about the one tiny little gaffe which he made, but neglect to report the main points of what he actually says.
Speeches should be judged by the key points of the speech - not by a singular mistake.
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:40 am
DEAR LAUREN, IS IT LEGAL FOR THE NEWS MEDIA NOT TO GIVE PEOPLE ALL THE INFO THEY NEED TO KNOW SO THEY CAN MAKE A JUST DECISION? OR IS IT JUST A MATTER OF THERE ETHICS? SOMEHOW I FEEL THERE MUST BE A LAW ABOUT THIS
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Hi Barbara,
Wouldn’t it be great if there were? However, I think a law that required reporters to include something in their stories would violate the reporters’ First Amendment right of free speech. What reporters include in their articles is a matter of ethics and personal conscience.
Lauren